2019 (7) TMI 458

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cturing various goods of Chapter 38, 48 and 49 on job work and using material supplied by various principals like Vinay Printing Press, Gujarat Education Board etc. The appellant were availing benefit of small scale exemption Notification 8/03-CE. The appellant had taken into account only the value of clearance of those goods which were being manufactured by them on their own while availing Notification 8/03. They had not included the value of goods which was manufactured by them on job work basis on behalf of the various principals. On 13.09.2006 the appellant had taken the Central Excise Registration after crossing the Rs. 400 Lakhs limit in the year 2005-06. On 30.09.2006 and 04.07.2006 Central Excise Officers visited the premises and wi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....SI Notification. Consequently, the original adjudicating authority had dropped the demand for the period prior to 01.04.2006 and the demand for the period after 01.04.2006 was confirmed. Revenue reviewed the said decision and Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order confirmed the demand and also imposed equal penalty. 2.1 It was argued that all the goods like books, catalogues, booklets etc. exempt under Notification 214/86 if manufactured on job work basis out of material supplied by principals they had not included the said aggregate value while computing the aggregate value of clearance of Rs. 300 Lakhs/ 400 Lakhs in a financial year. He pointed out that in the following decision, it has been held that benefit of Notification 214/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cisions in support of his case: • Commr. v/s Bharat Foundry 2009 (246) ELT 561 • G.G. Automotive Gears Ltd. 2014 (308) ELT 546 • Inar Profiles Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (310) ELT 200 2.3 He further argued that the notice is barred by limitation the appellant had a bonafide belief that in these circumstances the goods manufactured on job work basis are exempted from Central Excise duty. He further pointed out that all the decisions rendered by Tribunal also held that if the supplier of raw material does not follow any procedure the benefit of Notification 214/86-CE cannot be denied. He argued that since the appellant took registration as soon as they cross the limit of 400 Lakhs by the end of financial year 200....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... aggregate value of goods cleared by the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the supplier of goods have not followed the procedures prescribed under Notification 214/86. 6. The appellants have pointed out that at the material time there were various decisions which held that failure to follow the procedure prescribed under Notification 214/86-CE does not disentitle the assessee from the benefit of the said notification. Moreover, it has been argued that the liability of duty on goods manufactured on job work basis, on the manufacture vis a vis the principal who supplied the material, was also in doubt. The issue regarding liability of manufacturer vis a vis the principal was referred to Larger Bench of Tribunal. Larger Bench in cas....